Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To think men don't have a right to be at the birth of their children?

427 replies

Stripylikeatiger · 28/10/2014 21:19

I'm due to have a baby any day now last week and ds's godfather, the person due to look after him is going away for a couple of days Ds has a close relationship with his god father and we have prepared him for being looked after by him by having him put him to bed, learn about ds's routine and so on.

I'm quite worried about leaving ds as he co-sleeps and we have never left him over night before.

Dp has said that his parents should look after ds if I go into labour on the days where ds's god father is away. Ds doesn't know pil, they live quite a long way away and when they come to visit they spend about an hour with ds, they have no idea about his routines. Pil booked to come and visit (not staying with us) to see the new baby but of course there is no baby yet, so they are able to look after ds. Instead of spending time with him the usual visiting friends and having hair appointments take precedent (which is of course up to them!)

I feel so stressed about the thought of leaving ds with people who are strangers to him, I don't think I could relax in labour knowing my child was possibly distressed or confused. I really don't want ds to associate the baby coming with him being left with random people.

I have said to dp that if I go into labour on one of the days ds's godfather is away I'd prefer dp to stay at home with ds and actually that would be the most supportive thing he could do as it would allow me to focus on giving birth.

Dp is furious and says he has a right to be there at the birth of his child, I tried to point out to him that birth isn't a spectator sport and he should think about supporting me rather than thinking about his rights.

Does a father have the right to be at the birth of his child? I'm tempted to just call a taxi when I go into labour and go in by myself.

OP posts:
JulyKit · 29/10/2014 18:05

There's no 'moral right' either.

Nope, you're right, Cats. (In the abstract Grin) there could only be a moral obligation...

OP, I hope all is well.

JulyKit · 29/10/2014 18:06

And yes, will be looking more closely at Michel Odent pages. Really interesting.

StarlingMurmuration · 29/10/2014 18:06

I didn't say there was. I asked for examples of people saying there was a legal right, and said most people seemed to be referring to a moral right. You wont find any posts of mine saying there is either, by the way. HTH.

Catsarebastards · 29/10/2014 18:13

Forgive me starling your comment seemed to imply that you agreed with those posters referring to a father's 'moral right' to attend the birth of their child.

Consider my post to be addressing those who do think there is a moral right. Which may or may not include you depending on whether you do or do not think such a right exists.

StarlingMurmuration · 29/10/2014 18:27

Cats, what I've been trying to say is that I think there are essentially two discussions going on in this thread. I think most posters would agree that men don't have an automatic [legal] right to be present at the birth, but many posters think the OP would be unreasonable to stop her DP being there. The two arguments seems to be getting mixed up.

For what it's worth, I don't think men have any right to be there, I do think the OP is being unreasonable, and I also think we talk to much about rights and not enough about whether things are right. I think in the majority of regular loving relationships, it wouldn't be right to refuse the father access to the birth, even if the mother has every right to do so.

JulyKit · 29/10/2014 18:39

I really don't think there was too much confusion regarding what posters were in fact referring to WRT 'rights'. It seemed that in that respect the main argument concerned whether women have any moral obligation to allow DPs to be present at birth, and if so, whether that should only be in 'exceptional' circumstances.

As some posters pointed out, the nature of the OP's question was maybe slightly confusing, since it wasn't at first entirely clear whether any mixed feelings she might have had about her DP's presence/absence just concerned her feelings about childcare or something different.

JulyKit · 29/10/2014 18:41

Sorry, I mean whether any exception to (perceived) 'moral obligation' (or same concept differently expressed) should be dependent on 'exceptional' circumstances.

ApocalypseThen · 29/10/2014 18:42

I think I may have got that wrong - it seemed to me that childcare was an issue, but her husband's assertion of rights which she knew he didn't have appeared me to prompt the thread.

But from her later remarks it appears that childcare was possibly what she really wanted to talk about.

JulyKit · 29/10/2014 18:46

I think that's the point, Apocalypse - it wasn't really clear which one of those things was the real issue for OP. (And yes, asking OP might have been useful. Responding to surprising slew of 'YABUs' seemed somehow more 'urgent', though Blush).

maninawomansworld · 29/10/2014 18:51

Sorry OP, and I realise my comment will probably not go down well on a female dominated site but YABVVVVVVU.
Possibly one of the most unreasonable AIBU's I've ever read!

Your child is just as much your partner's as it is yours. If a couple are estranged then I understand the difficulties but I would stull argue that the father has every right to be there (unless there is some sort of domestic violence / social services stuff going on then it's a little different).

purplefeathers · 29/10/2014 18:51

It's an interesting question to ponder though, whether fathers have a right to be at the birth. I'm just so surprised at the amount of nastiness that is directed at women who would prefer not to have their dh there for whatever reason.

LittleBearPad · 29/10/2014 18:53

I think childcare was the actual issue underlying the situation but her husband's assertion of 'his rights' was the thing that rightly annoyed her promoting the thread and the title and tone of the opening post. I'd be pissed off if DH went on about his rights when I was worried about my DD and how she'd cope with unfamiliar babysitters.

ApocalypseThen · 29/10/2014 18:56

It's an interesting question to ponder though, whether fathers have a right to be at the birth.

It is an interesting question. The first I came across it was an American man who sued his ex to present at the birth against her express wishes. The case was going on by video link to her labour room while she was in labour, causing immense distress to the woman. He lost, of course. But it did alert me to the issues of female bodily integrity and how women's privacy and comfort are routinely trampled on as others asset their rights.

JulyKit · 29/10/2014 18:56

Yep, same, purple

I always wonder when people appear to believe they've made 'choices', but then apparently resent the possibility that others might treat the same choices differently.

maninawom - why do you imagine that your opinion 'probably won't go down well'? I mean that, seriously....

Bowlersarm · 29/10/2014 19:01

maninawomansworld, I agree with your post.

Catsarebastards · 29/10/2014 19:09

Your child is just as much your partner's as it is yours.

But her labour is entirely her own, as is her privacy, her birth choices, her wishes regarding labour and her choice of birthing partner.

I would stull argue that the father has every right to be there

Your argument would be wrong. He has no right, legal, moral or otherwise.

Marmiteandjamislush · 29/10/2014 19:12

Just come back to this thread and seen your questions. Hope OP doesn't mind a hijack.

  1. Of course DH could look after himself. BUT DC1 can't and DH works, so the ladies step and fulfill my roles as homemaker for the time being. He still has his role of provider and just as I was adjusting to being a mum of two, so he was as a father. He needed time to pray and be with DC 1
  1. By intimately separate I mean no physical relations or sleeping in the same bed, same as after a period, though with female children we must wait longer. Most couples do not resume the former for far longer but will sleep in the same bed again after the stated time.
  1. Looking after the baby at night. Husbands don't need to this as they can't feed a baby. Though most change baby if needed when back in the same room and always attend to DC 1 at night.
  1. Coming down stairs. We don't have to stay upstairs for 30 days, but equally we are not expected to come down before then. It is designed so that we can relax the laws of modesty and dress how we are comfortable in those first weeks. Most ladies will be in bed for the first week, then be upstairs but casually dressed, hair uncovered etc. and receive other women for advice and friendship and discuss what is normally not discussed in front of men who are not our husbands. It is about limiting visitors and giving time, but the rest period is there regardless of whether you are up or down stairs.
dreamerdoer · 29/10/2014 19:12

It's an interesting question to ponder though, whether fathers have a right to be at the birth. I'm just so surprised at the amount of nastiness that is directed at women who would prefer not to have their dh there for whatever reason.

I think its interesting that people seem to perceive this as an 'equal rights between the sexes' issue (hence comments about reducing men to sperm donors etc), when really I think gender is a bit of a red herring.

If you imagine a scenario where, for example, a woman has agreed to be a surrogate for the egg of another woman (the biological mother), I would still think that it is the woman actually going through the process of giving birth who gets to control who is present. The child may biologically belong to the other woman but she has no 'right' to be there during birth, because the needs of the unborn child and woman carrying them come first.

Catsarebastards · 29/10/2014 19:14

The case was going on by video link to her labour room while she was in labour, causing immense distress to the woman

Angry

Fucking disgusting. The judge that allowed that should be facing disciplinary action!

purplefeathers · 29/10/2014 19:18

That's an interesting perspective dreamer.

maninawomansworld · 29/10/2014 19:21

JulyKit
maninawom - why do you imagine that your opinion 'probably won't go down well'? I mean that, seriously....
See the comment a couple of lines down from yours courtesy of Catsarebastards . This response is quite typical. No attempt to justify the response - I am a man so I must be wrong.

Catsarebastards In response to your comments:
No you are right, at present a man has no legal right to be at the birth of his child. This is something that I and many men believe is wrong! So long as there are no legal reasons why a man shouldn't be there (domestic violence / social services / court of protection etc) then I believe he SHOULD have legal rights to attend.

As far as moral rights go then I would argue we DO have the right to be there as every cell in that babies body is made 50% mother / father DNA. By a quirk of biology the woman carries the child but that does NOT mean the child is more hers than the fathers!

slightlyconfused85 · 29/10/2014 19:24

I don't think YABU, however I think it's a real shame that you don't want your DH at the birth of the child you have made together. If he was at the birth of your DS he will know how special it is, and that is why he will want to come again. I know for my DP, it was a very special bonding moment for him and DD when he held her moments after she was born, and was the one to cut her cord.

It's your body and your choice who you have in labour, but you are being quite pfb and for your DH to miss the birth of your next child for pfb reasons is a massive shame. YANBU but YABV silly

Catsarebastards · 29/10/2014 19:33

ee the comment a couple of lines down from yours courtesy of Catsarebastards . This response is quite typical. No attempt to justify the response - I am a man so I must be wrong.

Please take the time to read the thread. You will see that anyone sharing your views, male or female, has been told they are wrong. My response is based on nothing other than your post. Your gender was not taken into account in my reply.

I would argue we DO have the right to be there as every cell in that babies body is made 50% mother / father DNA.

The baby is 50% the father's. the labour and birth are 0% the fathers. From birth you have a responsibility (legally and morally) to support your child and your child has a right to contact with you. Prior to birth these rights and responsibilities do not exist. In other words once the baby is born you can claim your responsibility to uphold the child's right to contact with you. You get no say over what parts of a woman you see or have contact with whilst she is in labour. And you never should.

JulyKit · 29/10/2014 19:45

manin - I think I understand very well why you say what you say, but I don't agree with your reasoning.

I'm guessing that your view is based on the presumption that fathers care unreservedly about the well-being of both baby and mother (rather than simply regarding them as 'property' or similar). If that's so, then presumably you wish the baby to be born as safely as possible? If you do, then presumably you care very much about the quality of the birth. And if you care about that, then you care that the birth is as stress-free as possible. In which case you want to avoid stress-inducing factors.
As has been stated by several posters above (see Fyrefly's posts, and go to other John's (?) link to Michel Odent, perhaps), women can have very different needs regarding who is and isn't present at birth. These preferences don't necessarily correlate to whom women 'love' or 'respect'. They can be more complex than that. But respect (or lack of it) for these needs can affect the quality of the birth for better or worse.
So even taking into account fathers' 50% 'ownership' or 'contribution' (or whatever - for want of better words), it may be that it's in father's interests, a well as that of mother and child, for father to suppress his (very understandable) desire to be present at birth.

ApocalypseThen · 29/10/2014 19:45

By a quirk of biology the woman carries the child but that does NOT mean the child is more hers than the fathers!

It's not a question of who owns the child to what percentage. It's a question of a woman's right to control her environment and attendants as she gives birth.

I'm really angry about the casual trivialisation of the process of pregnancy and childbirth. Both are actually hard, gruelling, remorseless work. Certainly I wouldn't want to be in labour with a birth partner who was unable to appreciate that and act accordingly.